b&h price drops

Kunzite · 06-13-2012, 07:38 AM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

Spanking over. Back to bed for you.

Talk about being childish...

**miltona580** · 06-13-2012, 07:47 AM

Is anyone else worried this is just B&H and Amazon deciding they are not going to carry Pentax anymore?

Kunzite · 06-13-2012, 07:50 AM

I'm not.

mattdm · 06-13-2012, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by miltona580

Is anyone else worried this is just B&H and Amazon deciding they are not going to carry Pentax anymore?

It can't be — under the new pricing model and US law, they can't just drop the prices without permission.

vonBaloney · 06-13-2012, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

You're very, very confused...You keep insisting that somehow Ned lying is distinguishable from Pentax lying.

I don't think anyone is saying that. It doesn't even matter if they are "distinguishable" or not. Unless you are arguing that Ned is *literally* a dumb terminal -- a computer that can't actually understand words, then all this corporate stuff is irrelevant. People are saying in a plain and simple way that if this statement is untrue and it passed Ned's lips (or keyboard, as the case may be), then Ned is lying. And of course he is. That's what a lie is. Doesn't matter how it got into his head, doesn't matter if he is passing it along as part of the corporate chain, it doesn't matter if there is literally a gun to his head. If Ned understands words, and he knows what the truth is, and this isn't it, then it is a lie. No law can change that, no historical precedent, and no amount of rudeness, condescension, and brow-beating on your part can change the fact that "speaking an untruth = lying", period.

Who is ultimately responsible for that lie? Ned the individual? Ned/Pentax/Ricoh as indistinguishable entity? IT DOES NOT MATTER AND COMPLETELY MISSES THE POINT. Well, what is the point then? That the statement is not true. That's it.

Can we stop this silly semantic argument now? We are, after all, talking about a statement where we don't even know whether it is true or false, and now we are on this pointless abstract tangent. Stop it.

Blue · 06-13-2012, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

I'm not.

You aren't a U.S.A. buyer either.

redrockcoulee · 06-13-2012, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

Good Lord, what drivel!

The extremis of war and the actions of corporate officers selling a product are two completely different motivations and legal responsibilities. Cleverly stopping oooooh so short of Godwin's Law is the same as putting an elephant in a room and calling it a parakeet.

To invoke one while desperately trying to salvage an unwinnable position in the discussion is an ad hominem reference and silly hyperbole. And now trying to reference international law in a criminal context to something that is a civil commercial marketing matter just continues the ignorance.

The whole "following orders" in a criminal, wartime context as compared to Pentax pricing policy is childish analogy.

Spanking over. Back to bed for you.

Yes sir!

jmg257 · 06-13-2012, 09:10 AM

Quote:

...
Can we stop this silly semantic argument now? We are, after all, talking about a statement where we don't even know whether it is true or false, and now we are on this pointless abstract tangent. Stop it.

Obviously I agree, but let's be yet more simple and more specific so hopefully we can ALL agree:

IF what Ned wrote is wrong and he knew it, then Ned lied AND Pentax lied.

Easy, & fine with me.

So, back to the real discussion - did Pentax lie, or not? More to the point - how responsible was the Ricoh ownership in Pentax going to UPP? For what ever reason, Ned made a statement to remove any notion that Ricoh ownership was responsible. Why? Why would he/Pentax lie, if it wasn't true? What would be the point?

I read something about facts up above (facts - not evidence or conjecture)...so what are they?

Kunzite · 06-13-2012, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by Blue

You aren't a U.S.A. buyer either.

I did buy from B&H, once - does that count?

vonBaloney, we should stop speaking about a "lie", since this is just nonsense.
Ned did not lied. Ricoh didn't somehow forced Ned to lie. Calling names/insulting is rude.

By the way, the Ricoh == puppeteer theory adepts still have to explain how overseas micromanagement would work

eddie1960 · 06-13-2012, 09:18 AM

11 pages of b*itching about a price drop. man you guys slay me. yep the upp implementation sucked, and the explanations were bafflegab, but hell you got lower pricing back (probably really where it was intended to be eventually)and in fact you now have lower pricing than I do in canada on most models
time to unsubscribe

jmg257 · 06-13-2012, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

...
vonBaloney, we should stop speaking about a "lie", since this is just nonsense.
Ned did not lied. Ricoh didn't somehow forced Ned to lie. Calling names/insulting is rude.

By the way, the Ricoh == puppeteer theory adepts still have to explain how overseas micromanagement would work

How do you know? Are you sure Ricoh was NOT responsible for the move to UPP?

Kunzite · 06-13-2012, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by eddie1960

probably really where it was intended to be eventually

Yeah.

jmg257: are you sure they were?
Just explain how overseas micromanagement would work, please; we'll continue after that.

jmg257 · 06-13-2012, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by eddie1960

11 pages of b*itching about a price drop. man you guys slay me. yep the upp implementation sucked, and the explanations were bafflegab, but hell you got lower pricing back (probably really where it was intended to be eventually)and in fact you now have lower pricing than I do in canada on most models
time to unsubscribe

Actually, most of the posts aren't about price drops at all!

jmg257 · 06-13-2012, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

Yeah.

jmg257: are you sure they were?

Not at all. NEVER said they were. In fact - I never said anything definitive one way or the other about Ricoh's responsibility..because I DO NOT KNOW. (which is why I put a lot of "IF"s in my posts)

So what do YOU know? You seem quite sure...they weren't - and THAT is the point of most of this conversation (I think).

Quote:

Just explain how overseas micromanagement would work, please; we'll continue after that.

No thanks...wouldn't even pretend to know (or care).

vonBaloney · 06-13-2012, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

Just explain how overseas micromanagement would work, please; we'll continue after that.

Phone? Email? Videoconferencing? Actual travel?

This is 2012 -- distance doesn't matter -- they can have a 24/7 video link with the home office if they want, with all documents instantly available to anyone that needs to see them. Why would "overseas" be any kind of sticking point in this day and age?

06-13-2012, 09:10 AM	#158
jmg257 Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 202	Quote: ... Can we stop this silly semantic argument now? We are, after all, talking about a statement where we don't even know whether it is true or false, and now we are on this pointless abstract tangent. Stop it. Obviously I agree, but let's be yet more simple and more specific so hopefully we can ALL agree: IF what Ned wrote is wrong and he knew it, then Ned lied AND Pentax lied. Easy, & fine with me. So, back to the real discussion - did Pentax lie, or not? More to the point - how responsible was the Ricoh ownership in Pentax going to UPP? For what ever reason, Ned made a statement to remove any notion that Ricoh ownership was responsible. Why? Why would he/Pentax lie, if it wasn't true? What would be the point? I read something about facts up above (facts - not evidence or conjecture)...so what are they? Last edited by jmg257; 06-13-2012 at 09:22 AM.

06-13-2012, 09:30 AM	#164
jmg257 Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 202	Originally posted by Kunzite Yeah. jmg257: are you sure they were? Not at all. NEVER said they were. In fact - I never said anything definitive one way or the other about Ricoh's responsibility..because I DO NOT KNOW. (which is why I put a lot of "IF"s in my posts) So what do YOU know? You seem quite sure...they weren't - and THAT is the point of most of this conversation (I think). Quote: Just explain how overseas micromanagement would work, please; we'll continue after that. No thanks...wouldn't even pretend to know (or care). Last edited by jmg257; 06-13-2012 at 09:38 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Nature Raspberries & Cream & Drops	eaglem	Post Your Photos!	8	03-05-2012 03:49 PM
Pentax Webstore Drops Price on M42 to K-mount Adapter	NiftyFifty	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	23	12-08-2011 01:22 AM
What to Do if K-7 Price Really Drops ;-(	wll	Pentax DSLR Discussion	30	09-16-2010 02:47 PM
K7 price drops in Oz	ozlizard	Pentax DSLR Discussion	10	09-02-2009 04:03 AM
WooWhoo -- Pentax Canada Price Drops :D :D and one price increase	Jack Simpson	Pentax News and Rumors	45	05-06-2009 10:10 PM

06-13-2012, 07:38 AM	#151
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Originally posted by Aristophanes Spanking over. Back to bed for you. Talk about being childish...

06-13-2012, 07:47 AM	#152
miltona580 Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 309	Is anyone else worried this is just B&H and Amazon deciding they are not going to carry Pentax anymore?

06-13-2012, 07:50 AM	#153
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	I'm not.

06-13-2012, 07:59 AM	#154
mattdm Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Boston, MA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,948 Original Poster	Originally posted by miltona580 Is anyone else worried this is just B&H and Amazon deciding they are not going to carry Pentax anymore? It can't be — under the new pricing model and US law, they can't just drop the prices without permission.

06-13-2012, 08:50 AM	#155
vonBaloney Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Albuquerque, NM Posts: 6,029	Originally posted by Aristophanes You're very, very confused...You keep insisting that somehow Ned lying is distinguishable from Pentax lying. I don't think anyone is saying that. It doesn't even matter if they are "distinguishable" or not. Unless you are arguing that Ned is literally a dumb terminal -- a computer that can't actually understand words, then all this corporate stuff is irrelevant. People are saying in a plain and simple way that if this statement is untrue and it passed Ned's lips (or keyboard, as the case may be), then Ned is lying. And of course he is. That's what a lie is. Doesn't matter how it got into his head, doesn't matter if he is passing it along as part of the corporate chain, it doesn't matter if there is literally a gun to his head. If Ned understands words, and he knows what the truth is, and this isn't it, then it is a lie. No law can change that, no historical precedent, and no amount of rudeness, condescension, and brow-beating on your part can change the fact that "speaking an untruth = lying", period. Who is ultimately responsible for that lie? Ned the individual? Ned/Pentax/Ricoh as indistinguishable entity? IT DOES NOT MATTER AND COMPLETELY MISSES THE POINT. Well, what is the point then? That the statement is not true. That's it. Can we stop this silly semantic argument now? We are, after all, talking about a statement where we don't even know whether it is true or false, and now we are on this pointless abstract tangent. Stop it.

06-13-2012, 08:51 AM	#156
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Kunzite I'm not. You aren't a U.S.A. buyer either.

06-13-2012, 09:06 AM	#157
redrockcoulee Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Medicine Hat Posts: 2,306	Originally posted by Aristophanes Good Lord, what drivel! The extremis of war and the actions of corporate officers selling a product are two completely different motivations and legal responsibilities. Cleverly stopping oooooh so short of Godwin's Law is the same as putting an elephant in a room and calling it a parakeet. To invoke one while desperately trying to salvage an unwinnable position in the discussion is an ad hominem reference and silly hyperbole. And now trying to reference international law in a criminal context to something that is a civil commercial marketing matter just continues the ignorance. The whole "following orders" in a criminal, wartime context as compared to Pentax pricing policy is childish analogy. Spanking over. Back to bed for you. Yes sir!

06-13-2012, 09:15 AM	#159
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Originally posted by Blue You aren't a U.S.A. buyer either. I did buy from B&H, once - does that count? vonBaloney, we should stop speaking about a "lie", since this is just nonsense. Ned did not lied. Ricoh didn't somehow forced Ned to lie. Calling names/insulting is rude. By the way, the Ricoh == puppeteer theory adepts still have to explain how overseas micromanagement would work

06-13-2012, 09:18 AM	#160
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	11 pages of b*itching about a price drop. man you guys slay me. yep the upp implementation sucked, and the explanations were bafflegab, but hell you got lower pricing back (probably really where it was intended to be eventually)and in fact you now have lower pricing than I do in canada on most models time to unsubscribe

06-13-2012, 09:24 AM	#161
jmg257 Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 202	Originally posted by Kunzite ... vonBaloney, we should stop speaking about a "lie", since this is just nonsense. Ned did not lied. Ricoh didn't somehow forced Ned to lie. Calling names/insulting is rude. By the way, the Ricoh == puppeteer theory adepts still have to explain how overseas micromanagement would work How do you know? Are you sure Ricoh was NOT responsible for the move to UPP?

06-13-2012, 09:24 AM	#162
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Originally posted by eddie1960 probably really where it was intended to be eventually Yeah. jmg257: are you sure they were? Just explain how overseas micromanagement would work, please; we'll continue after that.

06-13-2012, 09:26 AM	#163
jmg257 Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 202	Originally posted by eddie1960 11 pages of b*itching about a price drop. man you guys slay me. yep the upp implementation sucked, and the explanations were bafflegab, but hell you got lower pricing back (probably really where it was intended to be eventually)and in fact you now have lower pricing than I do in canada on most models time to unsubscribe Actually, most of the posts aren't about price drops at all!

06-13-2012, 09:41 AM	#165
vonBaloney Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Albuquerque, NM Posts: 6,029	Originally posted by Kunzite Just explain how overseas micromanagement would work, please; we'll continue after that. Phone? Email? Videoconferencing? Actual travel? This is 2012 -- distance doesn't matter -- they can have a 24/7 video link with the home office if they want, with all documents instantly available to anyone that needs to see them. Why would "overseas" be any kind of sticking point in this day and age?