Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-25-2008, 06:11 PM   #16
Pentaxian
Moderator Emeritus




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,648
Damn Brit, good for you standing on a principle and I personally agree with your stance and I'm glad you mentoned it.

As for the above flame war, I'll sit on rparmar's side of the fence. Well rebutted!!

05-25-2008, 06:24 PM   #17
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Riverview FL
Posts: 130
QuoteOriginally posted by Peter Zack Quote
Damn Brit, good for you standing on a principle and I personally agree with your stance and I'm glad you mentoned it.

As for the above flame war, I'll sit on rparmar's side of the fence. Well rebutted!!
+1 on that. Buy where you are comfortable. I have a whole list of places I will not buy from because I don't like their policies. My family and friends think I am crazy but I refuse to give my hard earned cash to companies I do not agree with. I do not however give other people greif for shoping at these same places. It is a free country right?
05-25-2008, 07:00 PM   #18
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: London
Posts: 1,067
Hi BeerCan

+2 on that. Used to buy Sony's professional recording equipment some decades ago, but had so much grief combined with a costly/lousy service experience that I swore I'd NEVER buy any of their gear again. Never have since - once bitten, twice shy ! Moral of the story - stick to your guns and hit 'em where it hurts most i.e. in the pocket ! In my opinion, their products are innovative but ultimately unreliable, but YMMV !

Best regards
Richard

Last edited by Confused; 05-25-2008 at 07:10 PM.
05-25-2008, 08:31 PM   #19
Veteran Member
HogRider's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 608
FWIW I bought at least 3 lenses and 2 camera bodies from Willoughby's in the last 3 years and never had a single problem, except the last time I thought the packaging was a little poor, but everything was OK.

05-26-2008, 10:22 PM   #20
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: SE BC and NE Montana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 198
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
Rick, you're pretty mixed up. You flame Damn Brit for exercising his right not to buy from a retailer who has practices he does not approve of, yet you say you support "individual rights and freedoms".
I'm not mixed up at all, although you seem to be - here, let me try and help you out with that.

Let's start by pointing out that I didn't direct one negative word towards the Brit. Towards the HSUS and the other pressure groups out there, you bet. But not the Brit. You on the other hand, despite your feeble attempts at moral superiority, didn't have any problem turning on the afterburners from the start. Didn't even have a problem with twisting the truth right out of shape while doing it, either!

So you start your argument out with making false claims that I made negative/insulting/flaming comments towards the Brit - and him an honourary Canadian, no less. Didn't take you long to fall off your moral high horse, did it?

I support the Brit following his own muse. And if he feels the right thing to do is boycott Amazon because they sell cockfighting magazines, or pornography, or extremely conservative religious magazines, or gay magazines, or whatever, then he should do just that.

However, I don't agree with the "try and shut down everything you don't agree with" approach to life. I hope you're not offended in my giving my opinion on that, are you? I mean... why does that pose such an enormous problem for you? Is dissent such a dangerous thing? Would you find it more acceptable in your world of rights if we only criticized Amazon and I just kept my trap shut about the HSUS? I happen to LIKE Amazon and think they have given me awesome service for many years now. Why would you find it so offensive that I speak on their behalf. Isn't that kind of... what's that term you used in referring to me... "narrow minded"?

If you can find anywhere that I suggested that he not voice his opinion and reasons, or anywhere that I made the kind of derogatory comments to the Brit such as those you made to me...

...do be good enough to point that out to all of us like a good lad, won't you?

You can't do that, can you? Because I never said anything that could even be remotely construed as telling him to shut up - you just got your panties in a twist as soon as you read my opinions on the matter. In fact, when it comes right down to it, I didn't criticize the Brit at all - I criticized the HSUS for trying to use the courts to curtail rights because what Amazon is doing is legal and they can't shut them down using the substantive law. However, you sure as hell had no problem in going after me personally (or trying to), rather than just my opinions, didn't you.

One rule for you, another rule for everyone else, hmmmmm? Do they call that "hypocrisy" over in Ireland, same as they do here?

QuoteQuote:
In the meantime you denigrate "soccer moms" -- what have they ever done to you? Infringed on your rights to baseball? Run you off the street in their SUVs?
Let me help you with that. The term "soccer moms" is generally used to refer to politically correct busybodies who run around industriously trying to make everyone else live their lives the way they think it should be done.

REAL "soccer moms" (or hockey moms, or whatever) are usually too busy being moms, raising their families and living their own lives to be continually obsessed with what other people are reading, thinking, doing, etc.

What have the local "soccer moms" been up to? Well, the local book store no longer carrries hunting magazines and motorcycle magazines that concern Harleys - wouldn't want to warp any young minds, don't you know. No skin off my nose as those aren't to my taste - but what a lesson for those young minds! Oh yes... let's not forget the successful banning of assorted books from the local school. Now THERE'S a lesson in pressure group tactics and the importance of civil rights and tolerance for the kiddies!

And I have a problem with that. And anyone who indulges in that.

QuoteQuote:
You think that "bed wetting" is a pretty good insult, being too ignorant to realise this is a medical condition many have no control over. By the way, name-calling is not a form of argument. It does, however, pretty well reduce any opinion I might have of you to sub-zero. I'm all for a good argument but know already that this will not be one. Therefore I will not respond to any provocation.
It's a term - would you have had your knickers in just as much of an uproar if I had only used terms like "neo-cons" and "religious extremists"??? I suspect not, because I also suspect they're on your approved hit-list.

To clarify things for you, it generally refers to those who go into extreme fits of hand wringing over what other people are reading, thinking, and doing - or posting on the internet. Recognize anyone you know? I had no idea that where you're from it is exclusively used when one assumes the other person suffers from enuresis or is incontinent. My apologies for that.

As for your comment that, "By the way, name-calling is not a form of argument"... I like the way you followed that observation up exactly one paragraph later by calling me "ignorant". Nice touch, I like that! You might note I didn't call the Brit "ignorant", "narrow minded", or any other derogatory term such as those you directed towards me. So I have a question for you:

Seeing as you claimed that your opinion of anyone who uses name calling in an argument drops to "sub-zero"... what's your opinion of yourself right now?

Just curious.

That said, I'm not too concerned with a good argument with you, because so far you haven't shown any indication of having anything other than complaints about an OPINION (just mine, not the original one). And I must also confess that I really don't care what someone living in Ireland thinks about me one way or the other. There's a very small list of people on this planet that I feel an obligation to look up to - and you're not on it.

However, if you want to try your luck, feel free to PM me.

QuoteQuote:
Please realise that it is people exactly like you who are/have perverting your sacred Bill of Rights with their narrow-minded inchoate emotionally-driven and selfish approach to rights and freedoms.
Do you have even the remotest idea of the principles behind the Bill of Rights? I think living in a statist system has made it difficult for you to understand the fundamental differences about how rights are seen between our respective countries.

The Bill of Rights is philosophically about minimal interference with individuals - not collective pressure to make everyone behave and think like you do. John Locke is still a pretty good read all these centuries later, and you would benefit from a few evenings reading his books rather than haunting the internet. Your part of the world has wholeheartedly embraced a collectivist view of individual rights and freedoms - hopefully I'll be long dead and buried under blue Montana skies before that cancer ever takes a firm hold here.

And if anything, I'm a libertarian, not a Republican or anything else, if that doesn't confuse you any further. And no, I didn't vote for George Bush or any conservative politician in recent memory, so you can quite shaking with excitement at the thought you might have "outed" a neo-con or whatever the flavour of the month is.

As for the "people like me" comments and insults... ah yes, you save the best for last, don't you!

I find it incredibly amusing that a busybody indulging in moral outrage over the expression of an opinion feels they know anything about me. I have put my civilian life on hold to go back to the military and do peacekeeping tours in places like Bosnia, putting my butt on the line to protect Muslims, Croats, Serbs, whoever from being slaughtered just for being what they were - much less for expressing an opinion. I lost some pretty good friends on those tours in places like Bosnia, Somalia, etc. Every one of them a volunteer.

How's that for a bunch of "narrow minded and selfish" people???

Now... what were "people like you" doing when "people like me" were putting our butts on the line because we thought those peacekeeping missions and what they were about were important enough to risk our lives over? My guess is you weren't sleeping in a muddy bunker with random incoming artillery fire to brighten up your day. And, if I'm asked to go back to the military to work on a reconstruction team over in Afghanistan - which is about an even chance to happen - I'll put my personal life aside once again and go once again.

Every one of those tours takes you away from your family for a year; a year out of your life. "narrow minded and selfish" people like me to do that because we think that basic human rights are important enough to put your life on the line for, not just run your mouth on the Internet. But I don't have to tell you about that, because you know all about people like me, don't you? Clever lad!

And how many times have YOU taken a year out of your life from your family, and risked your life to protect the lives and rights of others, seeing as how you feel entitled to lecture me? Would the answer, perhaps, be "never"??????

Least any confusion remain, I support the Brit's right to boycott Amazon, whether because they carry gay and lesbian literature, fighting literature, converted former greenspace into a parking lot, selling food containing trans fats, or whatever cause moves him. I also support your right to fall into public proxisms of outrage when somebody expresses an opinion critical of pressure group tactics, even when those tactics are aimed at diminishing the rights of others.

However, if you expect me to apologize for criticizing the pressure group mentality that is running rampant in so many places, you're unfortunately out of luck. You're also going to have to do a bit more in life than be an Internet persona before you can lecture me on human and civil rights, their importance, and how far one should go to defend them.

Now, would you like to hear about my new lens when it arrives? Or only if I end up taking pictures of construction efforts in Afghanistan with it? After all, I suspect that's about the only way "people like you" willl ever get a glimpse of Afghanistan in the immediate future, correct?

And you're running around calling people "ignorant". Amusing.
05-26-2008, 10:55 PM   #21
Damn Brit
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by Rick Quote
Freedom of speech also includes that which many find abhorrent, unpleasant, disgusting, etc. Which is why the Supreme Court has ruled that also extends to most pornography, white supremist literature, etc. We are already far too dangerously close to evolving into the nanny state that England has become, without having every item in the Bill of Rights subject to the whines and complaints of every soccer mom in the country who wants something legal banned because they personally don't like it. This is a country of individual rights and freedoms, not lifestyle according to concensus.

I doubt Amazon makes any significant revenue off of those magazines, given the rather limited audience for such crap, and they clearly have more to lose over this than to gain, so I would expect it is a matter of principle. Once they bow to the pressure from the HSUS whackos - who are suing civilly because you know they'd be after them criminally if selling such magazines were a crime - then come the religious fundamentalists, the arch conservatives, the weak kneed, bed wetting liberals, and other assorted soccer mom groups.

Sue them and quit patronizing them until they drop all the cock/dog fighting magazines - but why stop there? They sell pornography - lots of people don't like pornography/erotica, so go after them for that as well. Oh wait... they also sell magazines about fighting. Horrors... bloodsports, many people think boxing and mixed martial arts should be banned - quick, sue them again. And (I know many won't believe this), they also sell gay and lesbian books and magazines/erotica... well, that's just plain disgusting - quick, let's boycott them again! And have you seen some of the religious stuff they offer? Why, some of that is just plain oppressive to anyone who doesn't hold the same beliefs - boycott 'em, I say! And on and on it goes.

In the end they (and any other bookstore) have their business - and what we have available as choices of reading material to purchase - run by a bunch of nanny-state pressure groups who want everyone to live according to THEIR mores. Once you've removed everything some intrusive bunch of busybodies don't like, what's left? Sure, it's legal to print your opinion/whatever and it's legal to buy it and read it - but our pressure groups have just made sure all that was shut down. Catch-22.

Frankly, while I hope all involved in dog fighting and cock fighting activities get their asses slung in jail, I also hope the HSUS gets their asses kicked in court with this lawsuit. The differences between them and PETA are increasingly vague every year. I don't need a bunch of jerks who make a living out of using the civil courts to try and do an end run around the Bill of Rights and other substantive law running my life. This particular issue doesn't affect me, but it's just a matter of time.

In fact, I think I'll have to show my support for Amazon by buying a Pentax 55-300 lens from them. Yeah... I need one of those.

Rick, you seem to be exercising your right to freedom of speech by insulting people. That's fine Rick, you have every right to but that doesn't change the fact that Cock Fighting is illegal in all 50 States, ergo magazines and advertising about Cock Fighting is illegal. Nothing to do with freedom of speech, if it was, Amazon would be able to sell Child Pornography the HSUS. Here is an excerpt from an email the HSUS sent out this week:
Animal Fighting Magazine to be Pulled from Amazon.com
On Tuesday, in another blow to animal fighters, we reached a settlement with one of the defendants in our federal lawsuit challenging the sale of two criminal animal fighting magazines on Amazon.com in violation of the federal Animal Welfare Act. The publishers of “The Gamecock” magazine agreed to permanently change the magazine’s format to exclude all ads for fighting animals, knives, and other illegal paraphernalia, and to stop selling the magazine on Amazon.com until it has demonstrated full compliance with federal law for one year.
Sadly, Amazon.com has vowed to fight on in the case, arguing that the First Amendment gives it the right to sell illegal animal fighting contraband. It wants to remain the only online retailer selling “The Feathered Warrior,” soon to be the sole remaining cockfighting trade publication sold on Amazon.com in violation of federal law. Tell Amazon.com what you think of its decision to continue profiting from illegal animal fighting.
05-26-2008, 11:11 PM   #22
Damn Brit
Guest




First of all thank you to the people who have responded with info about Willoughby's.

Secondly, thank you RParmar, Peter Zack, BeerCan and Confused for understanding where I am coming from. I also refuse to buy from Sony anymore.

And thirdly to those few who have found the discussion that this thread has turned into amusing, I like a joke as much as anyone and I often make a joke in serious threads but I try and follow it by making a serious comment related to the thread. You are not doing that so please, if you haven't got anything constructive to say one way or the other, "PLEASE GO AND FIND ANOTHER THREAD TO PLAY IN".
05-27-2008, 12:16 AM   #23
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: SE BC and NE Montana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 198
QuoteOriginally posted by Damn Brit Quote
Rick, you seem to be exercising your right to freedom of speech by insulting people.
Can we start off with you pointing out where I addressed insults to you in my initial post? I don't think I even addressed a comment to you - unless you are the entirity of the HSUS, of course. The other fellow wanted to get down to the nitty gritty, so we went there.

Failing your ability to point out where I called you "ignorant" or anything else such as was directed at me, perhaps we can agree that we're on the same page insofar as I stated I'd like to see everyone engaged in putting animals to fight each other in jail. We disagree on whether everyone with a grudge against something - real or imagined - is a positive force when trying to get the civil courts to do what the criminal and other substantive law will not.

If they're always so right, why is it that they can't do it at the ballot box but have to find a sympathetic court?

QuoteQuote:
That's fine Rick, you have every right to but that doesn't change the fact that Cock Fighting is illegal in all 50 States, ergo magazines and advertising about Cock Fighting is illegal.
Yes, that's the HSUS's claim to their donators, isn't it? Yet isn't it funny that they can't find ONE state that will charge Amazon or the stores that sell this stuff if it is in fact illegal? Not one.

Think about it - every state, and yet as I understand it the HSUS can't get one single state to lay criminal charges against Amazon or the publishers. Now... do you think just maybe the political position isn't quite what the HSUS makes it out to be to those they're dunning for money? I think they're full of BS, frankly, because if it is illegal how long do you think it would take one of the more touchy-feely state governments to lay charges?

As for your unique interpretation of the law... Murder is also illegal, as is auto theft, killing cops, etc. Now, if in fact it is true that if something is illegal then depictions of that is also illegal as you claim above, just why is it we still have all kinds of movies, books, magazines, video games, music, etc depicting all these crimes?

Consider too that we have peer reviewed research that has been repeated time and again that shows that violent programming is a causal factor in 50% of all murders, and probably 50% of all other violent crimes as well? (Among others, Dr. Brandon Centerwall). This isn't exactly news to criminologists, so if in fact publications depicting crimes are also illegal, why no charges there when the stakes are so high?

I might also ask why all the soccer moms out there aren't trying to shut down prime time television, video games, etc if they really do care about the important stuff, but let's not go there for now.

QuoteQuote:
Nothing to do with freedom of speech, if it was, Amazon would be able to sell Child Pornography the HSUS.
Wrong. Using your all or nothing argument, if selling pornography was illegal, they couldn't sell ANY pornography.

The courts have said their are LIMITS on the freedom of speech. Child pornography is illegal. How about bestiality, sado-masochism, and all of the other stuff that goes beyond any reasonable definition of erotica? Is that illegal? No. Why not? It isn't extreme enough to warrant intruding on the right to freedom of speech.

In short, the HSUS is cherrypicking. Which is why they're looking for a sympathetic judge.

Do you really, for one minute, believe the HSUS wouldn't have Amazon and the publisher's charged criminally if they could actually make their case in front of a real judge and a real state's Attorney General - instead of in front of their captive audience that they depend upon for donations? Man, they'd be all over them like flies on horse apples if they could charge them criminally.

Why don't you write them and ask "Why don't you skip the lawsuit and just lay charges criminally if it really is illegal to sell those magazines"?

QuoteQuote:
Here is an excerpt from an email the HSUS sent out this week:
Animal Fighting Magazine to be Pulled from Amazon.com
On Tuesday, in another blow to animal fighters, we reached a settlement with one of the defendants in our federal lawsuit challenging the sale of two criminal animal fighting magazines on Amazon.com in violation of the federal Animal Welfare Act. The publishers of “The Gamecock” magazine agreed to permanently change the magazine’s format to exclude all ads for fighting animals, knives, and other illegal paraphernalia, and to stop selling the magazine on Amazon.com until it has demonstrated full compliance with federal law for one year.
Death by lawyer, nothing new. You figure the distribution of crap magazines like that is large enough to fund a protracted battle with the HSUS in the courts? How much did the HSUS rake in from doners last year? More than that magazine makes in a decade, I bet.

Please, do write the HSUS and ask them why they were kind enough to just proceed in civil court rather than being meanies and having them charged criminally. I'd love to hear the answer to that.

QuoteQuote:
Sadly, Amazon.com has vowed to fight on in the case, arguing that the First Amendment gives it the right to sell illegal animal fighting contraband.
Well, making the empty statement that they are illegal might impress those reaching into their pockets to donate to the legal fund. However, it doesn't mean that the "illegal" statement is either true or factually correct. Which brings us back to the point that the fact they haven't had Amazon or either of these magazines charged criminally says a lot about just how factually accurate they're being in all their press releases.

Just out of curiosity, Brit, assuming you do hope Amazon be pressured/bound by court orderto stop selling these magazines, where SHOULD they stop bowing to pressure and nanny groups? Let's pretend for a moment that every single "boycott 'em" and every single civil action were 100% successful

Will you believe it is right and just to force the removal all publications that discuss abortion and planned parenthood when those violate some church groups' religious beliefs? After all, the argument is going to be that the life of an unborn child is a damn sight more important than a rooster.

Okay, how about all the firearms and gun magazines?

How about the biker magazines like Easyrider and others? Criminal biker gangs, right?

How about all the porn and erotica? Lots of people think that is absolutely filthy and disgusting and should be illegal - I'll bet a lot more than get all twisted up about cock fighting.

How about the gay and lesbian stuff? Some people find it absolutely obscene and abhorrent - get rid of that as well, and tough luck for the gays and lesbians because it offends us?

How about all the books that the religious extremist whackos carry on about - do those go too? Aren't peoples' eternal souls more important than a pit bull?

What about the books and publications from the arch conservatives who would take us back to the dark ages, treat immigrants like dirt, etc? Talk about the hate speech in some of those - shouldn't we help force them to remove those from the shelves as well?

Do they prohibit Christmas cards and Christmas trees from their stores because it offends a very small number of people from other religions?

I hope you can see where we're going with this. Do you think that Amazon (or whoever, it's the issue not the specific business) should only pull books and publications that YOU feel are dangerous/have no merit, or whatever? Or do you believe they have to say "fair's fair" and pull every single book, video, or whatever that offends or outrages some identifiable pressure group out there?

If you say "just the things that I'm against", then we have a problem, because we're assuming only your judgement, morals, and opinions have any merit and everybody else is wrong.

If you say "everything that offends some group", then we also have a problem because that is fanatically oppressive.

So what's your decision on that one? What's it gonna be - just the stuff your group doesn't agree with, or everything that some group doesn't agree with? You can't have it both ways - particularly when you've decided to start making incursions into the right to freedom of speech.

If the people through their elected representatives have made the activity, or the books, or whatever, illegal, then sling their asses in jail. But these end runs around elected governments and substantive law, trying to find a sympathetic judge that will rule in your favour civilly are offensive. And all the more so when they involve freedom of speech or one of our other rights. I hate that far, far more than I hate somebody pitting animals against each other.

How about we take this to the off topic area or PM if you wish to discuss the concepts further? I really would like, however, to hear your opinion on whether stores must respect the wishes of EVERY pressure and nanny group over what they don't carry - or just the stuff you agree should be pulled while leaving all the rest of the pressure groups out in the cold.

If your opinion is that it is quite ethical for one person to decide what is right and wrong for the rest of us to see and read based on that person's individual mores, prejudices, beliefs, ethics, etc, I have no problem with that.

Provided, of course, that I'm the guy that makes the rules...

Which is the whole point of Locke's writings and why we have and need a Bill of Rights that isn't subject to the whims of the soccer moms and politically correct nutbars in the first place.

05-27-2008, 01:00 AM   #24
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2008
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 212
back on topic

*pokes the aussies in the forum*

it's at 1249 now at Digital Camera Warehouse. however, bundled with certain lenses, it's a lot cheaper.

IF you pay full price for the lens, the K20D in the body + 18-250 Pentax kit works out to be $930 (Lens: $769

dodgy reasoning, i know, but hey, new body + Addition to LBA. can't be all bad...
05-27-2008, 01:56 AM   #25
Damn Brit
Guest




Rick, I did not suggest that you were insulting me, but I do think that you are using insults, for example; HSUS whackos, nanny state pressure groups, soccer moms and bed wetters. The first two, I would agree that there are extremists among them but on the whole I believe they are mainly comprised of people with the best intentions. The second two, are terms that can either be descriptive or insulting depending on the context in which they are used. In all four of the examples, to me, your tone is coming across as insulting.

On the second point, I don't understand what you mean by my 'unique interpretation of the law', it is a fact that Cock Fighting is illegal in all 50 States so therefore magazines and advertising relating to Cock Fighting would be illegal. It has nothing to do with what the HSUS claim to their donators. As to why there have been no criminal prosecutions, I don't know and I don't think you do either. If I were to hazard a guess, I would think it would be the same reason that few States prosecute any corporations; Don't bite the hand that feeds you. Maybe if the HSUS win this civil case, criminal prosecutions will follow. You also mention research about violent programming being a causal factor in murders and violent crimes, there has also been research that suggests the opposite in fact, violent programming becomes a substitute for those crimes. I would think that there is truth in both of those bodies of research but, more than likely, the real cause of murders and violent crimes is the pure and simple fact that Man is a violent species. There has all been research about cruelty towards animals being an indicator of future psycopathic tendencies. Jeffrey Dahmer would be one example but again I believe the reality is down to our being a violent species.

On the third point, what all or nothing argument? I used Child Pornography as an example, Child Pornography and Cock Fighting are both illegal but I'm sure that many of the people who indulge in either of them believe that their rights are being violated.
You then go on to say that "In short, the HSUS is cherry picking". How do you know, I have done nothing else but voice my opinions and yet most of what you have written has been written as a statement of fact.

The rest of what you say seems, to me, to be a mixture of recycling of what we have already covered and a lot of comparisons that I do not think are relevant to this discussion because they mostly seem to be things that, at the moment, are legal.

Finally, I am glad that we agree on what should happen to those involved with cock fighting and dog fighting and, I would hope, any other form of animal cruelty. I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on the legalities (or illegalities) of this discussion.

I would end by saying that I myself have reservations about the HSUS and Peta and in fact all large charities. I know they all do a lot of good but I also think that they do become 'too big for their own boots'. I would also agree with you that a certain amount of 'cherry picking' goes on. I believe that these large charities do have a tendency to 'blow their own trumpets' and go after the things that give them maximum exposure, but, at the same time, I also accept that they probably have to do those things for the overall good. Without the high profile stuff they wouldn't be able to fund the low profile stuff.
I reserve my respect for the 'little people' who volunteer to do all the 'grunt' work out of the goodness of their hearts but who, unfortunately, are blind to all the shenanigans and political posturing that goes on above them which, I believe is probably also something that you and I would agree on.
05-27-2008, 01:59 AM   #26
Damn Brit
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by nakey Quote
back on topic

*pokes the aussies in the forum*

it's at 1249 now at Digital Camera Warehouse. however, bundled with certain lenses, it's a lot cheaper.

IF you pay full price for the lens, the K20D in the body + 18-250 Pentax kit works out to be $930 (Lens: $769

dodgy reasoning, i know, but hey, new body + Addition to LBA. can't be all bad...
I may be wrong but aren't they one of these bait and switch outfits?
05-27-2008, 02:37 AM   #27
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2008
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 212
i dunno if them bait and switch shops even operate in Melbourne/sydney

Someone on another forum bought a K200 Off them and was quite happy. Northcote isn't near, but it's not exactly a hike either. i'd go there sat to have a look, but i'm busy all weekend

Looks pretty legit to me...
05-27-2008, 12:16 PM   #28
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: SE BC and NE Montana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 198
QuoteOriginally posted by Damn Brit Quote
On the second point, I don't understand what you mean by my 'unique interpretation of the law', it is a fact that Cock Fighting is illegal in all 50 States so therefore magazines and advertising relating to Cock Fighting would be illegal.
A more accurate description, then, would be "your erroneous interpretation of the law".

Can you point me towards ANY state or federal code that says something to the effect that "any publication depicting or relating to an act which is a criminal offence is itself illegal"? You can't because it doesn't exist. So maybe a more appropriate question might be: "What is the source of your belief that if an activity is illegal, then any printed or electronic media relating to that activity is also illegal".

I might have a bit of an unfair advantage because most of my life outside of the military was spent in law enforcement and I do have a degree in criminology, so I have more than than a passing acquaintance with the law. However, that isn't even required: what you are asserting simply fails the test of simple logic. If these magazines are illegal because the acts they depict are illegal, what about all the other similar media out there that also depicts and glorifies acts which are also illegal? How come all those books, videos, magazines, etc aren't illegal? After all, isn't murder a lot more serious than cockfighting?

QuoteQuote:
It has nothing to do with what the HSUS claim to their donators.
We'll have to disagree on that one. The HSUS heavily plays on everyone's emotions, and saying "we don't like this" isn't nearly as effective as saying "this books are illegal".

QuoteQuote:
As to why there have been no criminal prosecutions, I don't know and I don't think you do either. If I were to hazard a guess, I would think it would be the same reason that few States prosecute any corporations; Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
Yes, I do know - these magazines aren't illegal, no more than other publications that depict other criminal offences are illegal. Please don't tell me you actually think the HSUS was too shy to try and attempt to get criminal charges laid.

Other than that, I have a hard time believing that any state makes so much money of of these little niche magazines that they're worried about offending them. C'mon Brit - what do you think the circulation of those magazines is to begin with? And if they're published in New Mexico or whatever, just how much money does the state of... Oregon for example, make off a magazine published in another state. Think about it. Hell, the publicity alone of prosecuting one of these magazines would be a gold mine for some state's attorney with political aspirations.

QuoteQuote:
Maybe if the HSUS win this civil case, criminal prosecutions will follow.
I'd find it interesting if you could give me one example where that has happened. Particularly when the legal test on the one hand is the balance of probabilities and on the other it is beyond a reasonable doubt.

QuoteQuote:
You also mention research about violent programming being a causal factor in murders and violent crimes, there has also been research that suggests the opposite in fact, violent programming becomes a substitute for those crimes.
If you could tell me what refereed journal you read that in, I'd certainly like to have a look at it for myself.

QuoteQuote:
You then go on to say that "In short, the HSUS is cherry picking". How do you know, I have done nothing else but voice my opinions and yet most of what you have written has been written as a statement of fact.
It is a statement of fact. The HSUS can't get ANY state to lay criminal charges against these magazine publishers. Not one. Do you really believe that every single state is in collusion with these tiny, nasty little magazines? That simply isn't logical.

So on the one hand the HSUS screams these magazines are illegal. But meanwhile, they aren't in criminal court - oh no, they're out shopping for a sympathetic judge in civil court. And they use the excuse that "child pornography is illegal" - conveniently glossing over the fact that very, very few forms of pornography aren't found to be protected by the Bill of Rights, and are perfectly legal to sell and possess. If they had one single honest bone in their organization, what they would say is "these acts are so abhorrent they aren't entitled to the protection of the second amendment - just like child pornography". Which is a very different situation altogether than claiming that if something is illegal, then publications showing or glorifying that crime are also illegal.

That's why they're cherrypicking - and far less than honest or moral.

QuoteQuote:
The rest of what you say seems, to me, to be a mixture of recycling of what we have already covered and a lot of comparisons that I do not think are relevant to this discussion because they mostly seem to be things that, at the moment, are legal.
Really? Just where do you live where murder or grand theft auto are legal?

It comes down to the fact that your belief that if cock fighting is illegal, than magazines relating to that crime are also illegal, simply fails any test of logic. You can publish media relating to murder, car theft, whatever, and it is perfectly legal. Why is cock fighting - a much lesser crime - an exception?

I have to get back to work. However, I was looking forward to your answer on whether you think Amazon should be forced to remove only the material that you find objectionable, or if that forced removal should be extended to every single thing that some lobby/pressure group wants removed because they find it to be offensive/illegal in their opinion/whatever. I was kind of interested in seeing your answer to that one.
05-27-2008, 01:13 PM   #29
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: N.W. Massachusetts
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 84
With the new Pentax rebate the price for the k20d is now under $1000USA via Amazon. The rebate is good till July 30 if I recall correctly. So how much lower can it go in the next 60 days? And of course $100 extra off a 16-45 or 16-50 zoom will be too much for me to resist!
05-27-2008, 01:51 PM   #30
Veteran Member
Venturi's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Tulsa, OK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,639
Hey Bill, succinctly and eloquently stated all around. Locke and Franklin would be proud. Thank you for writing clearly what had been swimming in my head.

But back on topic: "Animal hater's" price dropped $10 today to $1089.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Had a K-1000 Aknot Welcomes and Introductions 3 07-29-2010 07:49 PM
Hi at 1000.... SteveM Welcomes and Introductions 3 02-05-2010 09:16 AM
Ektar 1000 tvfd911 Pentax Film SLR Discussion 1 09-09-2009 11:30 AM
Before I Blow a $1000.oo Fl_Gulfer Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 16 01-17-2009 12:05 AM
1000 Buddha Jones Photographic Technique 1 02-19-2008 07:24 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:15 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top