dealer or not. anything to make a buck.

friday i called the camera store and ask the dealer for the RC1 wireless
remote for the canon rebel xt he told me it does not work on it i told me it
does he said no and i dhould get the RC5. today i called again and ask for
the CANON EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 II LENS he did not have any but went on to
tell me that he has a TAMRON AF 28-80mm F/3.5-5.6 Aspherical. i told him i
did not want a tamron lens but a canon lens the JACK ASS tells me on the
phone that TAMRON IS THE COMPANY THATS MAKES ALL THE LENS FOR CANON. so i
should get the tamron lens i think canon should have a look at some of it's
dealers. i guess anything to make a buck. i hang up the phone. any comments
on that.


Vinnie

Vinnie wrote:
[]
TAMRON IS THE COMPANY THATS MAKES ALL THE LENS FOR CANON.

Explains a lot, doesn't it?

G

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:33:51 -0400, "Vinnie"
wrote:

friday i called the camera store and ask the dealer for the RC1 wireless
remote for the canon rebel xt he told me it does not work on it i told me it
does he said no and i dhould get the RC5. today i called again and ask for
the CANON EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 II LENS he did not have any but went on to
tell me that he has a TAMRON AF 28-80mm F/3.5-5.6 Aspherical. i told him i
did not want a tamron lens but a canon lens the JACK ASS tells me on the
phone that TAMRON IS THE COMPANY THATS MAKES ALL THE LENS FOR CANON. so i
should get the tamron lens i think canon should have a look at some of it's
dealers. i guess anything to make a buck. i hang up the phone. any comments
on that.


Vinnie


It could be true, but then to what level of quality does Canon spec
it's lenses that Tamron makes versus Tamron's own lenses?
However, what if you compared that aspherical Tamron to the old tech
Canon and the Tamron was better? Would you still be so BRAND
DRIVEN????

I've translated the original post for the benefit of those who don't read
monotype ...

---------------------------

On Friday I called the camera store to ask the dealer about the RC1 wireless
remote for the Canon Rebel XT. He told me it does not work on this model and
that I should get the RC5.

Today I called again and asked about the CANON EF 28-80mm F/3.5-5.6 II
LENS - he did not have any but went on to
tell me that he has a TAMRON AF 28-80mm F/3.5-5.6 aspherical.

I told him I didn't want a Tamron lens but a Canon lens - the JACK ASS
tells me that TAMRON IS THE COMPANY THATS MAKES ALL THE LENS
FOR CANON, so I should get the Tamron lens.

I think Canon should have a look at some of it's dealers. I guess anything
to make a buck.

I hung up the phone.

Any comments on that?

Vinnie

--------------------------

David J Taylor wrote:
Vinnie wrote:
[]
TAMRON IS THE COMPANY THATS MAKES ALL THE LENS FOR CANON.

Explains a lot, doesn't it?

G



I don't think so. I do recall reading that Tamron makes some lenses for
Canon but not the "L" series lenses and the Diffractive lenses. Tamron,
so far, is limited to making the Canon kit lenses.

"Cockpit Colin" wrote in message
...
I've translated the original post for the benefit of those who don't read
monotype ...
.....
I think Canon should have a look at some of it's dealers.

How patronising. You smug turd.

However, I'm very pleased to observe that you only made yourself look
superlatively idiotic by your failure to know the difference between its and
it's.

Rule one: if correcting somebody's spelling or grammatical errors on Usenet,
ensure that your correction is absolutely perfect.

How patronising. You smug turd.

Thank you very much.

However, I'm very pleased to observe that you only made yourself look
superlatively idiotic by your failure to know the difference between its
and
it's.

Rule one: if correcting somebody's spelling or grammatical errors on
Usenet,
ensure that your correction is absolutely perfect.

I was trying to make a (subtle) point that people who post what is, in
essence, several paragraphs as one - continuous - sentence with little other
attempts at grammar make the effort extremely hard to read. Nobody on usenet
expects a high standard - especially where many are communicating in what is
a 2nd language to them - but (IMHO) there is still an unwritten desire that
people at least make a minimum effort out of courtesy to their reader.

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 10:00:09 +1200, "Cockpit Colin"
wrote:

How patronising. You smug turd.

Thank you very much.

However, I'm very pleased to observe that you only made yourself look
superlatively idiotic by your failure to know the difference between its
and
it's.

Rule one: if correcting somebody's spelling or grammatical errors on
Usenet,
ensure that your correction is absolutely perfect.

I was trying to make a (subtle) point that people who post what is, in
essence, several paragraphs as one - continuous - sentence with little other
attempts at grammar make the effort extremely hard to read. Nobody on usenet
expects a high standard - especially where many are communicating in what is
a 2nd language to them - but (IMHO) there is still an unwritten desire that
people at least make a minimum effort out of courtesy to their reader.



I'd qualify that by excluding Americans.

The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com
Book readership slips in U.S.
By Monique E. Stuart
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published July 9, 2004
Fewer Americans are reading books, with rates declining the fastest
among younger and Hispanic readers, a report says.
"The lowest absolute reading rate is [among] Hispanics, even when
taking into account books in other languages, which we did," said Dana
Gioia, chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), which
conducted the survey. "But the largest absolute decline is among
younger readers."
The NEA reports that 47 percent of American adults read
literature, defined as novels and nonfictional books, short stories,
poems and plays. The most widely read among the literature group are
novels and short stories, which are read by 45 percent of Americans,
or 93 million people.
The study says literary reading overall has declined 10 percent
from 1982 to 2002. This represents a loss of 20 million readers.
Mr. Gioia said significant social and cultural implications are at
stake.
"If competing in the 21st century, some imaginative development
has been, and only can be, expressed through reading and writing. A
decline in reading will diminish our productivity and innovation.
Compared to nonreaders, readers attend sporting events 3-to-1. Readers
also volunteer more and do more charity. They go to museums and plays
more," he said.
He said computers, pocket video games and DVD players have
contributed significantly to the decline in reading.
"Active and engaged reading produces active and engaged citizens.
With all of the new inventions -- DVDs, VCRs, IPods, computers, the
Internet, and video games -- people still watch the same amount of TV
as they did 20 years ago, [and] that time is being taken away from two
major activities: reading and civic engagement," Mr. Gioia said.
Book sales decreased about 1 percent from 2002 to 2003. The
biggest decline was in adult literature, but sales of the popular
Harry Potter series are estimated to have offset this number.
"The categories [juvenile and adult] move independently," said
Jeff Abraham, executive director of the Book Industry Study Group,
which researches and monitors issues affecting book sales. "There is
no doubt that things like Harry Potter dampened the effects of the
overall decrease, but all in all, the bottom line has remained
relatively flat."
However, Mr. Abraham warned that book sales don't give an accurate
measurement of readership.
"An increase in net dollar sales doesn't necessarily indicate an
increase in the number of actual units sold. Net dollar sales are
determined by changes in prices. When books cost more, there are
higher net dollar sales, but that doesn't mean that there are higher
amounts of books being sold," he said.
Book sales are expected to dip again this year but rise from 2005
to 2007.
"There are more college grads than ever, but fewer are reading,"
Mr. Gioia said. "We need to develop ideas to develop adult readers --
the problem isn't just kids. Oprah's book club is good, but we need
hundreds more like it."
The Census Bureau conducted the study, "Reading at Risk: A Survey
of Literary Reading in America," at the NEA's request.
"The NEA doesn't have all of the answers," Mr. Gioia said. "This
is going to require national efforts, with many groups, institutions
and organizations working in many ways to reverse this, but we will
make this information available for the public. We want to create a
national debate about the importance of this. There are different
solutions for different groups. Everyone falls into a group, no matter
how you define that group. ... We consider this a national crisis."

I'd qualify that by excluding Americans.

The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com
Book readership slips in U.S.
By Monique E. Stuart
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published July 9, 2004
Fewer Americans are reading books, with rates declining the fastest
among younger and Hispanic readers, a report says.
"The lowest absolute reading rate is [among] Hispanics, even when
taking into account books in other languages, which we did," said Dana
Gioia, chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), which
conducted the survey. "But the largest absolute decline is among
younger readers."
The NEA reports that 47 percent of American adults read
literature, defined as novels and nonfictional books, short stories,
poems and plays. The most widely read among the literature group are
novels and short stories, which are read by 45 percent of Americans,
or 93 million people.
The study says literary reading overall has declined 10 percent
from 1982 to 2002. This represents a loss of 20 million readers.
Mr. Gioia said significant social and cultural implications are at
stake.
"If competing in the 21st century, some imaginative development
has been, and only can be, expressed through reading and writing. A
decline in reading will diminish our productivity and innovation.
Compared to nonreaders, readers attend sporting events 3-to-1. Readers
also volunteer more and do more charity. They go to museums and plays
more," he said.
He said computers, pocket video games and DVD players have
contributed significantly to the decline in reading.
"Active and engaged reading produces active and engaged citizens.
With all of the new inventions -- DVDs, VCRs, IPods, computers, the
Internet, and video games -- people still watch the same amount of TV
as they did 20 years ago, [and] that time is being taken away from two
major activities: reading and civic engagement," Mr. Gioia said.
Book sales decreased about 1 percent from 2002 to 2003. The
biggest decline was in adult literature, but sales of the popular
Harry Potter series are estimated to have offset this number.
"The categories [juvenile and adult] move independently," said
Jeff Abraham, executive director of the Book Industry Study Group,
which researches and monitors issues affecting book sales. "There is
no doubt that things like Harry Potter dampened the effects of the
overall decrease, but all in all, the bottom line has remained
relatively flat."
However, Mr. Abraham warned that book sales don't give an accurate
measurement of readership.
"An increase in net dollar sales doesn't necessarily indicate an
increase in the number of actual units sold. Net dollar sales are
determined by changes in prices. When books cost more, there are
higher net dollar sales, but that doesn't mean that there are higher
amounts of books being sold," he said.
Book sales are expected to dip again this year but rise from 2005
to 2007.
"There are more college grads than ever, but fewer are reading,"
Mr. Gioia said. "We need to develop ideas to develop adult readers --
the problem isn't just kids. Oprah's book club is good, but we need
hundreds more like it."
The Census Bureau conducted the study, "Reading at Risk: A Survey
of Literary Reading in America," at the NEA's request.
"The NEA doesn't have all of the answers," Mr. Gioia said. "This
is going to require national efforts, with many groups, institutions
and organizations working in many ways to reverse this, but we will
make this information available for the public. We want to create a
national debate about the importance of this. There are different
solutions for different groups. Everyone falls into a group, no matter
how you define that group. ... We consider this a national crisis."

So in essence what we're saying here is that both reading AND writing
standards are declining? Thank goodness I grew up in a time where schools
used to focus on teaching the basics - I can see serious consequences of
what was written in The Washington Times article.

Personally, I'm just going to delete some of these poorly written diatribes
in future. I certainly don't mind "pidgeon english" from those who have
obviously learnt English as a 2nd language, but if authors aren't prepared
to put just a little effort into making a post readable, then from now on
I'm not prepared to spend 3 times as long plowing through it all trying to
make sense of it.

Cockpit Colin wrote:
I'd qualify that by excluding Americans.


snip

Qualify what? That seems to have slipped off the screen.


So in essence what we're saying here is that both reading AND
writing
standards are declining? Thank goodness I grew up in a time where
schools used to focus on teaching the basics - I can see serious
consequences of what was written in The Washington Times article.

Personally, I'm just going to delete some of these poorly written
diatribes in future. I certainly don't mind "pidgeon english"


Do you mean "pidgin"? That's what I thought:

"A simplified form of speech that is usually a mixture of two or more
languages, has a rudimentary grammar and vocabulary, is used for
communication between groups speaking different languages, and is not
spoken as a first or native language. Also called contact language."

"No entry found for pidgeon."
"Pigeon":
1.. Any of various birds of the widely distributed family
Columbidae, characteristically having plump bodies, small heads, and
short legs, especially the rock dove or any of its domesticated
varieties.
2.. Slang. One who is easily swindled; a dupe.

from
those who have obviously learnt English as a 2nd language, but if
authors aren't prepared to put just a little effort into making a
post readable, then from now on I'm not prepared to spend 3

Do you mean "three"? That's what I thought.

times as
long plowing through it all trying to make sense of it.


Seems reasonable, if by "times as long" you mean to say "as much
time". I think there is some difficulty to be met in multiplying
"longs".


Not necessarily in order of appearance:

Too often there is no sense in it. That should be obvious very early
in the row you are plowing.

I agree that sloppy posts, formally and contently speaking, show a
severe lack of respect for one's readers. More important, they show a
lack of respect for oneself. When I was in the US military, I heard
this saying: "A man who doesn't shine the heels of his boots doesn't
wipe his ass." Relatively inexperienced, I was revolted, and had less
than a clue as to what it meant. Means.

Now I think I understand it a bit better. And everywhere I look, the
percentage of unshined boot-heels in the population seems to be
increasing.

Yours for unsloppying posts,

--
Frank S

"Never give a sucker an even break, or smarten-up a chump."
—William Claude Dukenfeld