Should all smokers be taken out and shot?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Your Photos On Canvas High Quality Low Price From £15
Next: Perspective (was Re: Has ultrawide angle become an overused cliche?)
From: Outing Trolls is FUN! on 9 Aug 2010 19:21 On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 17:59:12 -0500, Rich <none(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in >news:t93066te8cv2q03bcsuo7uvskvl75fmtbp(a)4ax.com: > >> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 06:38:16 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3127(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>>On Aug 8, 11:07�pm, ray <r...(a)zianet.com> wrote: >>>> On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 15:45:52 -0700, RichA wrote: >>>> >>>> Caveat Emptor. >>> >>>You can't if you aren't told. >> >> The whole concept of "caveat emptor" is that you should not expect to >> be told. That's why you should beware. >> >> > >In other words, never buy anything sight unseen or only from sources you >know won't burn you. But since you can't buy anything sight unseen in the >beginning how can you ever trust anyone to be able to buy? For me, no >problem in most cases as I live near stores that carry a lot of >photographic equipment. But for someone who is looking for something not >readily available locally, they need the seller to be upfront about the >condition of a product. Now that's funny. Back in my SLR days I had just purchased my new OM2n. About 2 months later I was going to go on a photo trek (quick last-minute decision) and wanted a nice compact zoom with macro for the type of field work I do in remote regions. I looked at a Sigma 39-80mm f/3.5 he had in the display cabinet. Just about fitting my needs I decided to buy one. (I have it in my hand now to get the specs off of it.) He got nice new factory-sealed box from the store-room. I jumped back in the 4W camper and headed for the roads. Later when I got out into the field I found that one of the internal lens elements deep within the optical path had a nasty haze of oil-spray on it, robbing everything of contrast and clarity, even in the viewfinder. Luckily for me I have no qualms about opening up a lens and cleaning it in the field, even to that degree of disassembly. After cleaning it performed very well, so I kept it. So going on this experience, I should *NEVER* buy from any reputable camera dealer as well. Especially factory-sealed equipment. LOL!
From: Outing Trolls is FUN! on 9 Aug 2010 19:42 On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 18:48:28 -0400, Robert Haar <bobhaar(a)me.com> wrote: >On 8/9/10 7:17 AM, "gamer_reg(a)yahoo.com" <gamer_reg(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 20:56:34 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> How can anyone do this to a camera? >> >> How you ask? >> >> Because it's THEIR camera. >> >> They bought and paid for it and how they use and treat it is their >> choice just as how you use and treat your camera is your choice. >> >> Do you have a problem with free choice? > > >No. Do you have a problem with honesty? If the previous owner chooses to >smoke, that is his free choice. But if he sells it, the hidden defect of >the accumulated smoke exposure should be revealed. Otherwise he is >misleading prospective buyers. So why are you morons bitching to us instead of the seller? Trolling for attention?
From: ray on 9 Aug 2010 20:27 On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 17:59:12 -0500, Rich wrote: > tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in > news:t93066te8cv2q03bcsuo7uvskvl75fmtbp(a)4ax.com: > >> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 06:38:16 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3127(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>>On Aug 8, 11:07 pm, ray <r...(a)zianet.com> wrote: >>>> On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 15:45:52 -0700, RichA wrote: >>>> >>>> Caveat Emptor. >>> >>>You can't if you aren't told. >> >> The whole concept of "caveat emptor" is that you should not expect to >> be told. That's why you should beware. >> >> >> > In other words, never buy anything sight unseen or only from sources you > know won't burn you. But since you can't buy anything sight unseen in > the beginning how can you ever trust anyone to be able to buy? For me, > no problem in most cases as I live near stores that carry a lot of > photographic equipment. But for someone who is looking for something > not readily available locally, they need the seller to be upfront about > the condition of a product. Part of "Caveat Emptor" is knowing your sources.
From: Peter on 10 Aug 2010 09:40 "N" <N(a)onyx.com> wrote in message news:p5mdnXGlJqT2asLRnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d(a)westnet.com.au... > > <gamer_reg(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:9tov565j6j67d7ioc1pg1cm7cu7gmf9pda(a)4ax.com... >> On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 20:56:34 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>>I picked up a prime lens today, an older used one. I noticed the lens >>>had a light blue coating, which was odd as this prime's coatings are >>>usually brown-purple. At home, I gave the lens a swipe with a lens >>>tissue, and it looked like part of the coating "rubbed off." Turns >>>out, the lens was covered in a layer of tobacco smoke residue. The >>>whole lens was coated with it. When I cleaned the entire front >>>element surface, sure enough, the correct coating colour was revealed. >>>It took an hour to clean the thing. Luckily, the inside and the back >>>of the lens were ok, likely because it was inside the camera body. >>>I'm glad I didn't have to see the camera. But I've seen this before >>>on optics. How can anyone do this to a camera? >> >> How you ask? >> >> Because it's THEIR camera. >> >> They bought and paid for it and how they use and treat it is their >> choice just as how you use and treat your camera is your choice. >> >> Do you have a problem with free choice? > > If you sell your house, you are required to clean it when vacating. You are not, unless your agreement of sale requires it. If I am wrong tell me what law requires it. -- Peter
From: Peter on 10 Aug 2010 09:46
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message news:2010080909032243658-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... > On 2010-08-09 08:44:46 -0700, zekfrivo(a)zekfrivolous.com (GregS) said: > >> In article >> <b12da5d7-73db-47f8-8658-a0b1e3d44ef0(a)l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Rich >> <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Aug 9, 8:47=A0am, Outing Trolls is FUN! <o...(a)trollouters.org> wrote: >>>> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 22:44:57 +1000, "N" <N...(a)onyx.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Outing Trolls is FUN!" <o...(a)trollouters.org> wrote in message >>>>> news:9ttv561l6b1kvdkhcsolq0j3apccnna62h(a)4ax.com... >>>>>> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 22:41:15 +1000, "N" <N...(a)onyx.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> If you sell your house, you are required to clean it when vacating. >>>> >>>>>> In what Nazi dictatorship country is that a requirement? >>>> >>>>> Have you ever sold a house? >>>> >>>> Yes. And I could even burn them to the ground first and sell the >>>> charred >>>> remains and land if I want. >>>> >>>> Like I asked, "In what Nazi dictatorship country is that a >>>> requirement?" >>> >>> Even if it isn't a requirement to clean it, you are required to inform >>> the buyer if something is going to intefere with the enjoyment or use >>> of the property, like the presence of black mold. At least you are in >>> Canada, I don't know about the U.S. >> >> Most all houses have mold. >> >> greg > > Where do you live? > Mold is the least of my problems in my hot and dry local climate. > > Cleaning the house before sale, is not a requirement, but it might be a > good idea in what is a buyers market. Though some foreclosure sales of > trashed homes have to be made with damage disclosures or the selling bank > can have liability issues. > > ...and disclosure laws apply in California, and I am sure they do in the > other states. > Disclosure of defect <> leaving old furniture and garbage in the house. The typical language in a contract of sale requires the premises to be delivered: "vacant and broom clean, in it's current state and condition, reasonable wear and tear excepted." Absent such a clause the seller can leave old furniture and dust bunnies all over the house. -- Peter |