|
Forum: Sold Items
06-25-2011, 01:05 PM
|
| |
Dear SyntheticDreamer (Will Weaver?),
please let me know what did you decide to do with regard to my Pentax SF-10 camera, so I can decide what I can do next.
Regards,
Constantine Ivanov
|
|
Forum: Sold Items
06-22-2011, 07:23 PM
|
| |
PentaxForums.com Marketplace Listing
Item for Sale
Pentax SF-10 35mm SLR Camera Body. A++
Asking Price
$45
Item Location
Queens, NY
Item Description
Pentax SF-10 KAF-mount SLR 35mm Film Camera Body No. 4225919 in excellent working condition.
This is one of a few Pentax cameras which I had acquired last years to teach aesthetics and creative photography to my grandchildren and their classmates and thus possibly to minimize their chances to absorb some bad habits in their school-yard and on the streets.
Now I'm going to concentrate on next tasks, so I can free my drawers.
SF-10 is a very solid Pentax model with many auto and manual options offered to both photography novices and professionals.
Its KAF mount allows to use a broad range of lenses, both auto and manual; besides Pentax-F lenses, the camera can use Albinar, Chinon, Cosina, Hanimex, Promaster, Sears, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Vivitar, and countless other lenses. Of course, lenses with simple K-mount also can be used in manual mode.
Exposure memory lock, several exposure modes (P, Av, Tv, M, B) and shutter speed from 30 to 1/2000 sec., built-in flash and other nice features assure almost endless variety of scenes that a photography-lover can capture.
With all its advantages and technical sophistication, the camera is easy to operate.
This camera works flawlessly, all functions are intact.
Photos are of the actual item, so please review thoroughly.
Detailed information of this camera can be found at Pentax SF7/SF10 Camera Reviews - Pentax Camera Reviews - DSLR and Film SLR Database.
Camera goes with a good Pentax neck-strap, but with no battery (to prevent from any chance of leaking.)
Pentax SF-10 uses 2CR5 6V battery which is easily obtainable. *******************************************************************************************************
PayPal only.
I do not accept returns of any photo equipment, cameras and lenses, for obvious reasons.
That's why I always make close-up photos of cameras and lenses to show the item in question as if under a microscope.
Even though I prefer to avoid troubles related to the paperwork for international shipping, the most fervent international buyers may try, but should realize that the shipping cost is significantly higher and the delivery time is much longer.
Contact me regarding shipping costs to other countries.
*******************************************************************
Please check out my other items that I am going to post here soon.
Are you the original owner of the item being sold?
No
Are you selling or trading this item?
Selling
Item Condition (Key)
Used
Excellent
Shipping Destinations
United States
Shipping Charge
$15.90
Shipping Services
USPS Priority Mail
Accepted Payment Types
PayPal
Return Policy & Additional Details
I accept returns of photo cameras and lenses only if the actual item is significantly different from the description (which is highly unlikely, because I not only verbally describe the item for sale, but also take close-up photos of it, so that potential buyer can see the item as if under a microscope)
Please send me a private message if interested in the item!
|
|
Forum: Sold Items
06-21-2011, 01:52 PM
|
| |
In February this year, I posted the following:
"I am looking for a completely inoperative, not-repairable and ready to be thrown out Pentax SF-10 body that still looks like a photo camera rather than as a piece of scrap-heap:
I want my grandchildren to disassemble and re-assemble it while having my perfectly working Pentax SF-10 in front of them as a pattern to follow.
Just want to teach my grandchildren to think more broadly than they are taught to think at their schools.
I'll pay reasonable shipping cost.
Thank you.
Constantine Ivanov
Queens, NY
Default
JulCon@PoemsAndReflectionsConstantineIvanov.com "
The idea has proven to be successful: my grandkids are becoming step-by-step mad about photography, in general, and photo equipment repair, in particular.
Now with the exact same purpose, I am looking for somebody's generosity to send me a completely inoperative Pentax P30 (exactly only this model) instead of throwing it into a incinerator.
Unfortunately, I can pay only shipping cost from within the USA to New York.
Please send me a private message (PM) if you are willing to make me happy with an inoperative (but not superficially damaged) P30. -:)
Your kindness will be highly appreciated.
Thank you.
Constantine Ivanov
Queens, NY
JulCon@PoemsAndReflectionsConstantineIvanov.com |
|
Forum: General Talk
02-23-2011, 10:45 AM
|
| |
It's funny but it's not the answer on "who owns who."
As for the SCOTUS, I may be dead wrong but I think their decision is a perversion of the First Amendment: if I can bribe you with no limits, sorry, support election, then others' right of the Free speech is being limited by the amount those "others" supporters have.
The fact is that any government as a "machine of suppression" is being inevitably corrupted, and the bigger the government the broader the corruption.
The problem is how to bridle it.
Top Contributors to Obama Election 2008 officially registered (how many "unregistered" contributors, like Unions?):
University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,835
|
|
Forum: General Talk
02-23-2011, 09:49 AM
|
| |
Dear Wheatfield,
our discussion started, if I am not mistaken, from an accusation somebody raised against those who objected the distributing of breast pumps for free.
Then the discussion smoothly moved toward a broader topic - Socialism.
To my surprise, no, rather to my great chagrin, it appeared that here, on the Pentax Forum, there are more adherents of Socialism than adherents of restoring our country's prosperity without destroying it.
Somebody called this long discussion "meandering."
Well, it very well may be that it's me who turned this discussion to the more general issue, where the "breast pumps for free" are just one of signs of rotten mindset of spoilt people drugged by the promising-everything-for-free government.
When you said that the "government is owned by corporations," I first thought it's not the case in the USA.
But then, I've got lost: I see very close ties between the biggest private corporation called "the Federal Reserve" and the Government, and now I am confused: who owns who.
|
|
Forum: General Talk
02-23-2011, 07:59 AM
|
| |
As I remember, in 2006, Enron Chiefs, Skilling and Lay, were convicted and jailed.
Later, ones of the wealthiest financiers, Stanford and Madoff were convicted and jailed.
How those facts are supporting your statement about "the government owned and governed by corporations"?
If not to mention that, if I am not mistaken, the President is a part of the Government, its Executive Branch.
As far as I remember, Bush was elected twice by us the people, no help from outside sources.
Obama was elected (hopefully, just once) with a huge help from Unions and organizations fed by Soros. Maybe, this is what you meant by "government owned by..."?
But even in the last case, we the people have played a very significant role in his election...
Please let me know with concrete details, sources and proofs how is "the USA government owned and governed by corporations"
I wouldn't have such a question if we talked about, say, Russia...
But if we are talking about huge bail-outs of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM, Ford (if I am not mistaken) and many other corporations, initiated by Obama, if this is what you meant, then I agree completely that the government owns or wants to own corporations.
If completely implemented, it will be then a system called Socialism. Again.
|
|
Forum: General Talk
02-22-2011, 10:11 PM
|
| |
If a "thing/object/phenomenon X" pertains to "X-ism" and a "thing/object/phenomenon Y" pertains to "Y-ism", then any discussion related to matter X inevitably involves the discussion of the X-ism.
But any of those "X-maters are a particular case of the "X-ism"; therefore it's a separate topic to discuss without avoiding the "concrete discussions."
The above is, of course, my own opinion; you may not agree with it. It's perfectly OK.
Talk to you tomorrow (if I'll still be alive)
By the way, I think that Nesster perfectly understands the differences of mentality between America and Europe.
|
|
Forum: General Talk
02-22-2011, 02:53 PM
|
| |
1. Sure, I don't mind.
2. "One may argue that any government revenue is taking from ones to give to others." TRUE.
3. "One may argue that any government expenditure is similar in nature." Not necessarily true: it depends on what role is assigned to the government. That is, what political system is in question.
4. "One may argue that any rule, regulation, or law is also similar - one is taking and giving liberties or capabilities." TRUE.
But the extent is determined in the same way as mentioned above.
5. "The US Constitution ennumerates some of these and assigns them, and puts up rules around them." The Ideal.
The reality is - UNFORTUNATELY - different.
Sorry, I have to take a break right now. Talk to you later.
|
|
Forum: General Talk
02-22-2011, 02:45 PM
|
| |
Then it seems to be a different topic, which of course is very important...but different.
|
|
Forum: General Talk
02-22-2011, 02:17 PM
|
| |
Dear Nesster, as you may see from my Location, I live in the USA, where I came from the former USSR in a hope that I won't be living under Socialist system anymore ever.
Too many disappointments...
I see here a wish to establish so-called "the Power of Demos" a lot more than the Res Publica.
Actually and to be more precise, it's even not about the "pure/static" Socialism per se, but rather about something else, that evidently leads to a complete decay.
|
|
Forum: General Talk
02-22-2011, 02:04 PM
|
| |
No, dear Nesster, I do not confuse what you think I do. -:)
I only want to say (and as long as I am still alive, will be saying) that when and if the Government (or any branch of it, in particular) is inclined "to take from ones to give to others", it's a path to Socialism as it was originally defined.
Whether that path results in a Socialist realm or not, depends on the reins of government and on the wish, willingness and ability of the People.
|
|
Forum: General Talk
02-22-2011, 01:37 PM
|
| |
Several questions are emerging from the quoted statement right away:
1. Who decides what are the "overall societal interests"?
2. How is it decided, based on whose opinion examined in what way and approved by how many in what way?
3. Who and how decides what regulations are needed?
4. Who and how puts those regulations in practice?
5. How many people are needed to regulate, survey, and force to execute?
6. Who and how will fight against corruption inevitable in a pan-regulated system?
7. On which base is the taxation determined?
8. Who and how decides who and how to tax?
9. Where is the ceiling of taxation?
10. Who decides that height? On what base?
I have many more questions with regard to the solution called "Regulate and tax"...
It doesn't mean, though, that I am against those measures.
But their implementation is what may differentiate the Capitalist system from the Socialist system and anything in between
|
|
Forum: General Talk
02-22-2011, 12:17 PM
|
| |
With all due respect, Nesster, I didn't say FoxNews IS spreding Capitalist propaganda, I said "If FoxNews spreads propaganda of Capitalism..." which was a continuation of my previous question to Shooz : how he classifies the anti-Conservative propaganda, as you can see from the above quote of myself.
And my further assertion was that almost all so-called mainstream media are spreading anti-Conservative propaganda.
Based on your logic, if I am not mistaken (which very well may be), one may conclude that the anti-Conservative propaganda is not a pro-Democrats propaganda because Democrats are not Socialism-leaning people.
If so, why then our Democrats unanimously want to increase the Government and its role in Wealth distribution, where the very idea of the wealth distribution is based on a Robin Hood (I call it 'rob-in-hood') mindset fed and constantly warmed-up by class-warfare-rooted hatred for rich people?
|
|
Forum: General Talk
02-22-2011, 10:42 AM
|
| |
Tried... either not enough or not smart enough.
The latter is more likely: our poiliticians lately didn't convince me of their brilliant wit (and knowledge).
Nesster, to my opinion, is absolutely right: "There are no other alternatives."
|
|
Forum: General Talk
02-22-2011, 09:53 AM
|
| |
1. Shooz, please refrain from insulting the channel you most likely even don't watch.
2. Again, propaganda of what? If FoxNews spreads propaganda of Capitalism, which you seem to hate, then other channels, as opposed to FoxsNews, are spreading propaganda of Socialism (which I hate).
So, and why the good half of Americans who share my views should suffer from what you want to establish here but have no tiniest clue of?
|
|
Forum: General Talk
02-22-2011, 09:47 AM
|
| |
I have to take a medical break now and will respond you later.
But again, the words "right", "far right", "close right," "left," "far left" and so on are philosophically meaningless per se; it's just conventional terms frivolously used by specific political reasons.
Let's use something meaningful, if possible, OK?
Otherwise, as opposite to Conservative "right", I will have to call Commies "Lefties," which somebody found inappropriate....-:)
|
|
Forum: General Talk
02-22-2011, 09:38 AM
|
| |
What propaganda are you talking about?
Propaganda of Capitalism?
Propaganda of Socialism?
As far as I know, the only moderate, not rabidly "progressive" channel on TV is Fox News (even though in last two years it visibly became a lot more "pro-Democratic").
All others, so-called "mainstream media" - MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBC, NY Times, LA Times, and so forth and so on - are RABIDLY Liberal: they are spreading nothing but anti-Conservative propaganda.
So, my question to you is this:
Is the anti-Conservative propaganda a Capitalist propaganda or a Socialist propaganda?
|
|
Forum: General Talk
02-22-2011, 09:25 AM
|
| |
It's hard NOT TO agree with you.
As you may have read, I already wrote about the danger of big monopolies.
It's also true.
The term socialism is used by different people in different ways, as far as I observe.
The main task of those people who I RESPECT AND APPLAUD, is to prevent our country from being "fundamentally transformed" into a Socialist state.
That's why they HAVE TO use this term: too many people don't realize how bad it would be to fulfill and put into practice fantasies of [doped] adherents and disciples of Socialism who personally have no clue what Socialism is.
|
|
Forum: General Talk
02-22-2011, 09:10 AM
|
| |
Wrong conclusion, shooz.
But it could be true, if corporations are owned and governed by the State Government.
In any case, you are right in that an amalgamation of corporations leads to monopoly, and monopoly is one of the main signs of Socialism: Socialism = no competition.
So called "Socialist competition", widely spread in the former USSR, was nothing but B.S.
|
|
Forum: General Talk
02-22-2011, 09:04 AM
|
| |
Dear "Wheatfield",
the words "lefty" or "right" applied to philosophical theories and ideologies are nothing but empty words.
They are used rather "automatically," by convention, not by the real meaning.
You and/or I can call International Socialists (aka "Socialists" as this term is commonly used) and National Socialists (what many people call simply Nazis, forgetting that it is an abbreviation of National SOCIALISM) red, yellow, magenta, turquoise, right, left, top, bottom, behind, before, etc. - no word of those "nicknames" reflect the real essence of the ideologies.
Again, "Left", "Right" and anything in the middle are nothing but empty conventional words.
I am sorry that I occasionally used the word "Left(y)," which I in fact don't like right because of its meaninglessness.
But it was Marx, then Lenin, then Madam Pelosi with Mr. Obama who used to call people with Socialist mindset "the Left". So, what can I do?
|
|
Forum: General Talk
02-22-2011, 08:43 AM
|
| |
I am 100% certain that the quoted sentence is an expression of an OPINION of an INDIVIDUAL ("lithos"), rather than citing of a definition (definitions) given by "founding fathers" of Socialism.
As a private opinion, it has its right of existence, but has very little value, if any, in and for a discussion of advantages or disadvantages of Socialism.
Why? Because it either unintentionally misleads or intentionally deceives the participants of the discussion.
To my opinion, the only meaningful way of a discussion on this issue is to take as a reference source the definition(s) given by founding fathers rather than somebody's private interpretation of it.
The very term "socialism" was coined by Saint-Simon who used the Latin root "socialis," which means "living with others."
Even from this short reminder is clear that Socialism, strictly speaking, is a POLITICAL system that arranges the economical activity of a society in a certain way.
We can only judge Socialism as it was theoretically developed and practically implemented by its founding fathers (starting from Owen and Saint-Simon, then followed and adjusted by Marx-Engels-Lenin-Mao-Castro-Neto-Ho-Pol Pot-Grotewohl/Ulbricht-Husak/Dubček etc.)
Anything else will be a discussion on a different topic or topics.
For instance: Different forms of Socialism; or Elements of Socialism applied by Social-Democratic Parties in Capitalist countries of Europe, and so forth.
Resume: Socialism is a Political System that is based on the State ownership of industries, under which the State economical structure is managed by the Government.
As such, Socialism and multi-party system are two incompatible things.
And other parties beyond the ruling one are nothing but a decoration and play no role in the Social structure.
|
|
Forum: General Talk
02-21-2011, 02:01 PM
|
| |
With a slight diligence you may find that I DID NOT insult anybody personally; I was only objecting the ideology you seem to be an adherent of.
But your and your companions' remarks regarding particular individuals and views that you don't share, reveal your intolerance to different opinions.
So, I am sure that any decent and honest person who reads this entire topic, will find no ground to insult me, as you did.
I don't want to talk with you anymore.
I will, though, talk with well-bred respectful people, if they want me to.
By the way, to satisfy your "curiosity":
no, I am not a plutocrat, if you understand the notion of "plutocrat" as "a representative of a rich top of ruling classes."
Never was. Never will be.
|
|
Forum: General Talk
02-21-2011, 01:02 PM
|
| |
Sorry for my bad English.
I meant "Are you a boor?" Or a teaser?
|
|
Forum: General Talk
02-21-2011, 12:10 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: General Talk
02-21-2011, 12:07 PM
|
| |
Sorry, I don't understand what this relates to: that I don't believe any propaganda?
Or that I am not interested in Leftists mentality?
You're right. I was born and lived in the USSR 50 years and left it by political reasons shortly before it collapsed.
That's why you are exactly right saying that I have an experience not many Americans have.
I don't agree, if you include in your list Socialist countries.
I emphasize: Socialist, not Capitalist countries with strong social-democratic regimes (aka widely developed welfare benefits system) like Sweden and Finland.
Socialist countries WITH NO EXCEPTION have proven that their governments do not depend on human characteristics of governing individuals: the system itself is doomed to corruption, no matter who are at Power.
|
