[cfraz]

True. Though it wouldn't & shouldn't relieve Ned of responsibility for what he says he writes there.

Likewise, even if Ned implemented UPP all on his own it would not and should not relieve Pentax Ricoh of responsibility for the actions of one of its agents.

If Pentax Ricoh knew what PRIAC (USA) was up to, they are responsible for letting it happen. If they didn't (and that's as likely as the moon being made of green cheese in my view), they are still responsible. PRIAC operates only with the authority and direction of Pentax Ricoh in Japan.

This squabble over lied/not lied is masking two important questions that (in contrast to the lied question) would actually be beneficial to answer.

1) Has the UPP changed? As far as I can tell B&H and Amazon are the only ones that dropped prices. If UPP has not changed, it will be interesting to see if B&H and Amazon get more lenses to sell. If UPP has not changed, are the rest of the dealers just asleep at the wheel?

2) Pentax enthusiasts were screwed by how UPP was done. Pentax dealers were screwed. The Pentax brand was screwed. Can Pentax recover from this and step up their business execution sufficently to keep selling product? In contrast to product design and engineering, Pentax business accumen seems remarkably inept.

[Aristophanes]

Though it wouldn't & shouldn't relieve Ned of responsibility for what he says he writes there.

Error: You attribute "Ned's" postings to an independence of Pentax corporate.

I assign no responsibility to "Ned" because he, or the person who wrote it, or the person who made "Ned write" it, are not responsible for this error on a personal level.

It is merely a comment made by a Pentax Executive to put a spin on what occurred.

You don't blame a guy and call him a liar if he had a figurative gun put to his head (Or was that analogy too militaristic? Someone, jump all over me!). But you don't know that, however, given the way corporations spin things as a matter of daily biz, this seems most likely. Head office rarely, if ever, takes the fall.

"Ned", the rogue trader. Has a ring to it.

That's an awesomely ironic ending in Robocop 2.

[ElJamoquio]

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

who said that, or who do you believe is thinking that? I could be wrong, but I feel like the people here wouldn't believe that at all.

[Kunzite]

Of course nobody said that. There were several points being made:
1. Ned is definitely not a liar, he seems to me an honest and open person. For example, he never thought he should hide his liking for a competitor's product.
2. Unless proven otherwise, that statement is not a lie. That statement, being as vague as it is, is afaik the only information we have on the subject.
3. Ned posted that statement on his personal blog, of his free will; I do not believe Ricoh orders him to keep a personal blog - in fact I find such a thought ridiculous.
3.b. Why Ricoh and not Pentax Ricoh Imaging Company?
4. Some people claimed (without any proof/base!) that Ned posted, of his own free will, a lie on his personal blog. We tried to explain said people that's very much equivalent to "Ned lied", but it's pointless - they would rather watch Robocop than listen to any reasonable, logical explanation.

[Class A]

Just to make it perfectly clear:
I never called Ned Bunnell a liar.
I have never "desperately tried to make Ned Bunell appear to be a liar" (which would first require me to buy Aristophanes' "Evil Ricoh"-fantasy).
I believe Ned Bunnell told the truth when he said that Ricoh had nothing to do with the Pentax USA UPP.

Aristophanes, I would appreciated if you stopped putting words into my mouth, as in the following.

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.

You must acknowledge the difference between "calling someone a liar" and "telling someone else, that if they claim 'A', while another person claims 'not A' then they are implying that the other person lies". You may disagree with the logic (at your own peril) but you cannot morph my statements into something they have never been.

I am not the one who said "Corporations cannot speak", whereas the US Supreme Court says otherwise. Class A wrong.

My statement was "Corporations cannot speak, without a person speaking". This is different to " "Corporations cannot speak". Hence your conclusion "Class A wrong" is wrong. You killed a strawman (again).

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.

Oh, so it is wrong to create examples which are based on "life vs death" scenarios? Curiously, you write in another post:

You don't blame a guy and call him a liar if he had a figurative gun put to his head (Or was that analogy too militaristic? Someone, jump all over me!).

Is it the "Someone, jump all over me!" that makes it not "shameful and reprehensible"? Are you applying the same standards to others and yourself?

Most importantly, however, your example is completely out of line. Ned's life was not at stake. According to your "Evil Ricoh"-fantasy, Ned was just asked to make a statement. At most, he would have lost his job (and probably sued the cr*p out of Ricoh in return). This was no "gun pointed to one's head" situation at all. In the latter situation, he would have no responsibility for anything he says. Even if he spoke the untruth, he'd not be lying. As you know, using an analogy, forced confessions can not be used in court.

However, as president of Pentax USA, you do not have to fear for your life, hence you are responsible for what you are doing.

[Quicksand]

I'm lying right now in this post.

[Blue]

I'm lying right now in this post.

Are you having a Roman style dinner and wine?

[Aristophanes]

My statement was "Corporations cannot speak, without a person speaking". This is different to " "Corporations cannot speak". Hence your conclusion "Class A wrong" is wrong. You killed a strawman (again).

Not true. Having worked for a $9 billion corporation for 14 years and working in a corporate environment buying and selling debt (bonds), this is not true at all. You have no clue.

I read hundreds of legal and financial documents where the legal "author" is the brand. That's the whole point of boilerplate text, mission statements, press releases, product brochures, prospectus', disclosure statements.

I do this for a living.

You have a major problem not being able to differentiate between the corporation and corporate flunky. You are confusing a blog as coming from someone separate than the corporate word and identity. This is where you are fundamentally wrong. So wrong it's becoming embarrassing (for you).

'Ned" has no personal responsibility for what he says about Pentax unless he violates a law and his fiduciary responsibilities (breaks his contract). This is not one of those cases, not by a long shot, despite you trying to ramp up the near-Godwin;s Law military criminality angle as an act of desperation. Your Bridge on the River Kwai moment.

Pentax has 100% of the liability for what "Ned" says about anything Pentax. No one else.

You're misunderstanding on this is complete.

[twitch]

B&H seem to be back at old inflated prices now for DA* and DA lenses

[seventysixersfan]

Yep. Not sure why that happened. Adorama never followed B&H in adopting the lower prices. Maybe B&H got some reprimand from Pentax and had to "get in line" with other retailers.

[apisto]

Yep. Not sure why that happened. Adorama never followed B&H in adopting the lower prices. Maybe B&H got some reprimand from Pentax and had to "get in line" with other retailers.

Gosh, I hope not. I was about to buy a 60-250. That is sure not going to happen at the inflated price.

[ofer4]

Indeed...B&H is back up. Amazon is still holding steady on the 35mm (for now). Glad I ordered during the dip.

[vonBaloney]

They sold so many they went back to "low stock" mode as someone theorized? Amazon actually tells you how many are in-stock (if it is low).

[cjb169]

Amazon is at the lower prices still - though most of their stock is showing as low (4-5 left). The other sellers they list seem to be at the higher prices, though there are execeptions (like Emmy photo). Curious to know what is going on.

[ElJamoquio]

Boy, UPP is awesome. I for one am glad the policy was implemented so well.