Would you buy a P&S because Ashton Kutcher says you should?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Dpreview, not just whores, but CHEAP whores to boot! (Rich's hate)
Next: Would you buy a SLR because Rich says you should?
From: Peter on 31 May 2010 08:31 "John Navas" <jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:hdn506lgakkjkiiaherkh60c5794ao0ofp(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 30 May 2010 14:52:29 -0400, "Peter" > <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in > <4c02b575$0$5513$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>: > >>"John Navas" <jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message >>news:6sl3065re9hcnfu3imvrcc7spu8j4t1foq(a)4ax.com... > >>>>Tell us though, what screens are now available for what laptops. I would >>>>like to see model numbed and distributor. >>> >>> Listed in detail in (three) Hardware Maintenance Manuals for the T61: >>> <http://www-307.ibm.com/pc/support/site.wss/document.do?lndocid=MIGR-39298> >> >>I see manuals. I stated I had a 6457, but don't see where you answer my >>questing. Maybe I had too much sun at the air show, but I don't see an >>answer. > > If you can't be bothered to lift a finger, then I can't be bothered to > do more than that. > > -- Somehow I shall survive. I had researched the monitor issue prior to my purchase. Yes, I might have missed something and I wanted to see if you knew something I didn't. I suspected you had no real answer and was just blustering. You just proved my suspicion to be correct. -- Peter
From: whisky-dave on 1 Jun 2010 08:24 "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:nqlsv5103350cau2dov8evamlmprgu513v(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 27 May 2010 12:03:12 +0100, "whisky-dave" > <whisky-dave(a)final.front.ear> wrote: >>It's exactly the point isn;t it, if I didnt; know who the famous women >>were >>then I wouldn't have seen DB as a celeb because he was married to them. >>I knew DB from the ads advertising the Olympus trip and that's >>really all I knew about him, and I believe most people recognised >>his name from those ads and not because who he married. >>Why should I care whether DB or anyone else is married or not ? > > > There's no need for you to care, just like there is no need for you to > know anything. They are both optional. Both are your choice. It's not my choice as to where anyone becomes a celebrity, whether or not |I recognise them as such doesn't matter. > > The point is that Bailey would never have been in the Olympus ads if > he hadn't married Marie Helvin, becoming a celebrity in the process. What makes you think that. If Marie Helvin was such a celeb then why not have her in the ads ? > The fact that you neither know or care is irrelevant. But it does > help to explain why you don't understand. Perhaps the rest of the country matters. I knew who twiggy was at the time why didn't Olympus use her ? >
From: Bruce on 1 Jun 2010 10:16 On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 13:24:10 +0100, "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave(a)final.front.ear> wrote: >"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The point is that Bailey would never have been in the Olympus ads if >> he hadn't married Marie Helvin, becoming a celebrity in the process. > >What makes you think that. If Marie Helvin was such a celeb then why >not have her in the ads? Er, perhaps because Marie Helvin is not a photographer, and David Bailey being a photographer was the whole basis of the ads? >> The fact that you neither know or care is irrelevant. But it does >> help to explain why you don't understand. > >Perhaps the rest of the country matters. >I knew who twiggy was at the time why didn't Olympus use her ? Er, perhaps because Twiggy is not a photographer, and David Bailey being a photographer was the whole basis of the ads?
From: Pete on 1 Jun 2010 13:19 On 2010-06-01 15:16:23 +0100, Bruce said: > On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 13:24:10 +0100, "whisky-dave" > <whisky-dave(a)final.front.ear> wrote: >> "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> The point is that Bailey would never have been in the Olympus ads if >>> he hadn't married Marie Helvin, becoming a celebrity in the process. >> >> What makes you think that. If Marie Helvin was such a celeb then why >> not have her in the ads? > > > Er, perhaps because Marie Helvin is not a photographer, and David > Bailey being a photographer was the whole basis of the ads? > > >>> The fact that you neither know or care is irrelevant. But it does >>> help to explain why you don't understand. >> >> Perhaps the rest of the country matters. >> I knew who twiggy was at the time why didn't Olympus use her ? > > > Er, perhaps because Twiggy is not a photographer, and David Bailey > being a photographer was the whole basis of the ads? She's seen more cameras than David Bailey. -- Pete
From: whisky-dave on 2 Jun 2010 08:24
"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:ee5a065jouvadi00kb9c1ni6phk4duprvo(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 13:24:10 +0100, "whisky-dave" > <whisky-dave(a)final.front.ear> wrote: >>"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> The point is that Bailey would never have been in the Olympus ads if >>> he hadn't married Marie Helvin, becoming a celebrity in the process. >> >>What makes you think that. If Marie Helvin was such a celeb then why >>not have her in the ads? > > > Er, perhaps because Marie Helvin is not a photographer, and David > Bailey being a photographer was the whole basis of the ads? Then why use David Bailey if he wasn't know. The thing is at the time these ads were about the phrase "David Bailey who's he " was more well know than either bailey, Olympus or Marie Helvin to the general masses who where the ones likely to by the camera. >>> The fact that you neither know or care is irrelevant. But it does >>> help to explain why you don't understand. >> >>Perhaps the rest of the country matters. >>I knew who twiggy was at the time why didn't Olympus use her ? > > > Er, perhaps because Twiggy is not a photographer, and David Bailey > being a photographer was the whole basis of the ads? But few knew him as a photographer, most discovered that from the ads. That's why they were so well know, it had nothing to do with who David Bailey was married to. |