Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/06/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]User Surachai V. at UNESCAP4 is not defined Original text follows ---------------------------------------------- Received: from gatekeeper6.un.org by mail-in2.un.org (SMTPLINK V2.11.01) ; Thu, 12 Jun 97 07:58:06 EST Return-Path: <owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Received: by gatekeeper6.un.org; id JAA14303; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 09:45:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mejac.palo-alto.ca.us(192.147.236.1) by gatekeeper6.un.org via smap (3.2) id xma014299; Thu, 12 Jun 97 09:45:01 -0400 Received: by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us id AA10536; Thu, 12 Jun 97 03:19:00 -0700 Received: by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us id AA10528; Thu, 12 Jun 97 03:18:56 -0700 Received: by gatekeeper2.un.org; id GAA05847; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 06:25:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail-in2.un.org(157.150.191.7) by gatekeeper2.un.org via smap (3.2) id xma005811; Thu, 12 Jun 97 06:24:59 -0400 Received: from ccMail by mail-in2.un.org (SMTPLINK V2.11.01) id 9705128661.AA866121829; Thu, 12 Jun 97 06:23:49 EST Date: Thu, 12 Jun 97 06:23:49 EST From: Postmaster@gatekeeper2.un.org (ccMail SMTPLINK) Message-Id: <9705128661.AA866121829@mail-in2.un.org> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: ccMail SMTPLINK Undeliverable Message Sender: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Precedence: bulk Reply-To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us User Surachai V. at UNESCAP4 is not defined Original text follows ---------------------------------------------- Received: from gatekeeper5.un.org by mail-in2.un.org (SMTPLINK V2.11.01) ; Thu, 12 Jun 97 06:23:38 EST Return-Path: <owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Received: by gatekeeper5.un.org; id AA059290351; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 06:12:31 -0400 Received: from mejac.palo-alto.ca.us(192.147.236.1) by gatekeeper5.un.org via smap (V3.1) id xma005738; Thu, 12 Jun 97 06:11:52 -0400 Received: by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us id AA07891; Thu, 12 Jun 97 02:16:01 -0700 Received: by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us id AA07883; Thu, 12 Jun 97 02:15:55 -0700 Received: from [169.132.99.44] (ppp-30.ts-6.nyc.idt.net [169.132.98.30]) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id FAA02773 for <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 05:15:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 05:15:51 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: dannyg1@pop3.idt.net Message-Id: <v01540b0cafc530ffba0b@[169.132.99.44]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us From: dannyg1@IDT.NET (Danny Gonzalez) Subject: To beat or not to beat? Sender: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Precedence: bulk Reply-To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > >The only "value factor" I'm ever concerned about is that they function the >way I >expect them to. If you relate to them as a book, the cover may look nice but >it's whats inside that really counts! :) Ted, When I was younger, my father made a gift to me of a gleaming Pentax LX, which I promptly made hard use of. Three months after I had started using it, it looked so sad, I was embarrassed to show it to my father. I was saddened that I had given in to a social 'status' imperitive, at the expense of showing some respect for my fathers generosity. Since then, I've lamented every scratch, every mark and every flaw on all of my cameras. I'm not writing this to chastise you your point of view; I just thought that I might speak-up for those of us who feel that there's no point in not taking extreme care with (what some perceive as) precious tools. Tomato?, Danny Gonzalez